You must do things the Apple way and only the Apple way. I'm in Vietnam now. My Viet friend encouraged me to get a used 3GS in America for $150 and he will sell it $200 at the end of the trip. Fine. But I still can't get my damn music from the USB memory stick to the phone. It's all in the iCloud. Sure it is. So how come it isn't? It was on the phone before i came here and had to reset the phone to make local calls

I was planning to replace my Palm Pre with the i5phone in November, but I think I will follow the advice given to me to get an Android instead.

The Kinks had great songs and musical genius. They were really good. Go on a YouTube crawl if you don't believe me. You could argue that many of their songs are as good as or even better than most of the songs offered by the Beatles.

But the Kinks didn't have anyone who could write a hook and sell a record like the Beatles had. Today, the Beatles are still the benchmark, the one everyone says is "the Next" or "Bigger Than". Even though modern artists are selling more records to today's audience than the Beatles sold to their 1964 market pretty much daily, the Beatles are still the ones to beat. They're the ones hipper-than-thou people claim sucked and stole all their ideas, whereas no one ever even thinks of badmouthing the Dave Clark Five. Paul McCartney can't sneeze without there being a Fark thread about it; I don't think I've ever seen a Kinks thread.

Because it doesn't matter how good your idea is, how good your tech is, if you can't put it in a box that people will get stars in their eyes for, you can't sell it. You just won't. Apple figured out how to sell those phones. Inferior tech or superior, inferior interface or superior, Apple managed to get that same kind of hook, that same kind of marketing mojo that Lennon and McCartney had.

Samsung was making the best phones they knew how to make, Apple was just better at figuring out what would sell.

Marcus Aurelius Apple wouldn't even exist any more if they didn't steal other people's tech. Starting with Xerox.

Ah,the Xerox myth. Xerox, at the time, was contractually obligated to show Apple all its projects. They tried to hide the mouse from Apple, but Apple sniffed it out and demanded to see it. After that, Apple developed a mouse that was far cheaper and more functional the the Xerox, which couldn't even drag diagonally.

Marcus Aurelius:Apple wouldn't even exist any more if they didn't steal other people's tech. Starting with Xerox.

Myth:Apple CEO Steve Jobs saw Xerox PARC product such as the GUI, either on a tour or at a trade show, then stole the PARC GUI implementation without permission, to create the Apple Lisa and the original Mac OS / Macintosh GUI.

Fact:Apple obtained permission ahead of the Xerox PARC visit. In addition, Apple provided compensation in exchange for the various Xerox PARC ideas such as the GUI.

The compensation for the Xerox PARC technology sharing deal with Apple was in form of $1 million dollars pre-IPO Apple stock / investment (if Apple does well, Xerox will benefit from Apple's success).

The PARC demo took place in 1979. Xerox received its compensation in exchange for showing some prototypes that Xerox didn't know what to do with.

"Jobs and several Apple employees including Jef Raskin visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share."

Dear Jerk:Marcus AureliusApple wouldn't even exist any more if they didn't steal other people's tech. Starting with Xerox.

Ah,the Xerox myth. Xerox, at the time, was contractually obligated to show Apple all its projects. They tried to hide the mouse from Apple, but Apple sniffed it out and demanded to see it. After that, Apple developed a mouse that was far cheaper and more functional the the Xerox, which couldn't even drag diagonally.

So, what you're saying is Apple got the whole idea from Xerox. Thanks for clearing that up.

unlikely:Samsung was making the best phones they knew how to make, Apple was just better at figuring out what would sell.

My opinion as well. You can fault Apple for a lot, but you can't deny the fact that they made a product for the consumer. One that "just works". I mean that's where the freakin cliche came from. They changed the game. I say this as someone who owns not a single Apple product. In fact I'm fully Microsoft. PC, Xbox, Windows Phone. But you better believe there would NOT be a windows phone if there was no iPhone. It's quality, pure and simple.

NutznGum:Dear Jerk: Marcus AureliusApple wouldn't even exist any more if they didn't steal other people's tech. Starting with Xerox.

Ah,the Xerox myth. Xerox, at the time, was contractually obligated to show Apple all its projects. They tried to hide the mouse from Apple, but Apple sniffed it out and demanded to see it. After that, Apple developed a mouse that was far cheaper and more functional the the Xerox, which couldn't even drag diagonally.

So, what you're saying is Apple got the whole idea from Xerox. Thanks for clearing that up.

The OP said "steal" not "got." Since Apple legally acquired the tech from Xerox through contractual obligations and greements, it wasn't "stealing" anything.

zedster:how can you have a whole thread about Apple stealing and no mention of taking from the BSD community and not giving a damn thing back?

At least Windows is it's own OS, OS X is just a bunch of proprietary packages over BSD

This.

It's a large part of why I respect the FOSS community and Microsoft a lot more than Apple. If Apple had to actually develop and maintain an OS from scratch (like NT), believe you me, OS X upgrades would not be $20. Furthermore, OS X exists because it has to (the computer Apple sells needs to run somehow), not as a means to push the envelope with customization and innovation, like Linux.

When Apple actually developed their own operating systems from scratch, we got crap. Some might think OS X is a better OS than Windows or Linux, but when you say that, realize it's not Apple that made the fundamentals.

That being said, these patent wars are ridiculous, and I hope Apple tries to pull this crap on Microsoft when the Surface is released. The reaction might be the only thing that gets them to knock off all of this damned litigation.

BullBearMS:NutznGum: So, what you're saying is Apple got the whole idea from Xerox. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's pretty obvious you have no idea how the Xerox Alto worked. File management, starting programs, and printing documents for instance, were all handled from a command prompt.

Why don't you take a look at the Alto User's Handbook? (Warning - PDF file)

I don't know or care how Xerox Alto worked. Apple, like every other tech company has borrowed heavily from partners and competitors over the years. Even Steve Jobs said they 'were shameless about stealing great ideas.' Unfortunately, they're not shameless in their petulance when someone does it to them.

Actually, if people want to go off and rage at a company for not giving back to FOSS projects. Might I suggest you set your sights on Transgaming who did actually run off with the source code to WINE, released their own commercial version and then stuck two fingers and a "fark you" up when people asked them to pay back the non-propriety changes forward.

That incident is the single reason WINE had to change its license. It's the reason I will never, EVER, buy an EA game that's been 'ported' to OS X, it runs in Cider... Transgaming's stolen versions of Wine & X11.

Marine1:zedster: how can you have a whole thread about Apple stealing and no mention of taking from the BSD community and not giving a damn thing back?

At least Windows is it's own OS, OS X is just a bunch of proprietary packages over BSD

This.

It's a large part of why I respect the FOSS community and Microsoft a lot more than Apple. If Apple had to actually develop and maintain an OS from scratch (like NT), believe you me, OS X upgrades would not be $20.

sure haven't:unlikely: Samsung was making the best phones they knew how to make, Apple was just better at figuring out what would sell.

My opinion as well. You can fault Apple for a lot, but you can't deny the fact that they made a product for the consumer. One that "just works". I mean that's where the freakin cliche came from. They changed the game. I say this as someone who owns not a single Apple product. In fact I'm fully Microsoft. PC, Xbox, Windows Phone. But you better believe there would NOT be a windows phone if there was no iPhone. It's quality, pure and simple.

NutznGum:BullBearMS: NutznGum: So, what you're saying is Apple got the whole idea from Xerox. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's pretty obvious you have no idea how the Xerox Alto worked. File management, starting programs, and printing documents for instance, were all handled from a command prompt.

Why don't you take a look at the Alto User's Handbook? (Warning - PDF file)

I don't know or care how Xerox Alto worked. Apple, like every other tech company has borrowed heavily from partners and competitors over the years. Even Steve Jobs said they 'were shameless about stealing great ideas.' Unfortunately, they're not shameless in their petulance when someone does it to them.

You don't know or care. Got it. That's why you don't understand Jobs' comment when he said that. I encourage you to go find out about Xerox Alto how it worked, the history behind it and the visits to PARC by Apple. I encourage you to learn about what Apple's team added to that GUI concept before they brought it to market. I encourage you to contemplate Jobs' later comment that "real artists ship" and why he said it. It will truly be enlightening, I promise.

He does have a valid point. Apple gets respected for things they shouldn't. As a computer researcher, it's irritating.

Dunno, I can respect them for providing commits back to the projects they use, they aren't all "We support FOSS" about it but they do comply with the terms of the licenses and then some. His point was that they weren't doing so. Much like IBM and Samba really.

I think everyone in this bullshiat patent malarky needs a damn good slap though.

Well, in a way, they're right... in that they've got a patent on a communication standard used by all the cell providers, and Apple wouldn't have sold any phones without using that standard.

But here's the problem... Samsung is treading on very dangerous ground here, since they're obligated under FRAND to allow Apple to purchase a license at a reasonable rate, which Apple claims* they tried to do. If* that's true and Samsung was trying to charge Apple more because of Apple's other lawsuits against Samsung, then Samsung may have been misusing the patent...... which not only gets the DoJ's antitrust hackles up, it also makes their patent legally unenforceable.In other words, if this doesn't turn out well, it's not just that Samsung loses this case, but that they lose every case related to the patent.

theurge14:Marine1: zedster: how can you have a whole thread about Apple stealing and no mention of taking from the BSD community and not giving a damn thing back?

At least Windows is it's own OS, OS X is just a bunch of proprietary packages over BSD

This.

It's a large part of why I respect the FOSS community and Microsoft a lot more than Apple. If Apple had to actually develop and maintain an OS from scratch (like NT), believe you me, OS X upgrades would not be $20.

Are you joking? I'm serious, are you?

I'm not joking.

Let's look at what all gets upgraded when Microsoft releases a new desktop client version of Windows (forget Server):

... and so on. Most of that stuff is provided gratis and is based almost exclusively on Microsoft's own technology. The merits of that technology can be debated (some of it is problematic; some of it is good), but it's Microsoft's and they develop it.

Apple doesn't have to invest nearly as much into their platform as most of it was developed out of house. Linux is supported by donations of time and money.

Theaetetus:But here's the problem... Samsung is treading on very dangerous ground here, since they're obligated under FRAND to allow Apple to purchase a license at a reasonable rate, which Apple claims* they tried to do. If* that's true and Samsung was trying to charge Apple more because of Apple's other lawsuits against Samsung, then Samsung may have been misusing the patent...... which not only gets the DoJ's antitrust hackles up, it also makes their patent legally unenforceable.In other words, if this doesn't turn out well, it's not just that Samsung loses this case, but that they lose every case related to the patent.

You skipped the part were most other companies in the cellular arena cross license patents instead of paying a cash value, making their FRAND patents worth what ever they think they are. Apple, only having a few WIFI patents, had nothing to leverage and thus has to pay "market price" for the FRAND patents. Nokia, Samsung, etc.... can argue the value of their patents is worth what ever their co-licenses value their own patents at. So if Nokia says their FRAND patents are worth 2 billion a year and than cross-license to Samsung for say 100 million a year, than Samsung could argue their patents are worth 1.9 billion a year. (numbers inflated to simplify things)

zedster:how can you have a whole thread about Apple stealing and no mention of taking from the BSD community and not giving a damn thing back?

You mean aside from Apple releasing the code for Darwin, their fork of BSD? Or Zeroconfig? Or Bonjour? Or CUPS? Or Webkit? Or Grand Central Dispatch? Or all those other open source projects they do not run, but contribute code to?

Marine1:theurge14: Marine1: zedster: how can you have a whole thread about Apple stealing and no mention of taking from the BSD community and not giving a damn thing back?

At least Windows is it's own OS, OS X is just a bunch of proprietary packages over BSD

This.

It's a large part of why I respect the FOSS community and Microsoft a lot more than Apple. If Apple had to actually develop and maintain an OS from scratch (like NT), believe you me, OS X upgrades would not be $20.

Are you joking? I'm serious, are you?

I'm not joking.

So you believe Microsoft built NT from scratch? So IBM and OS/2 mean nothing to you?

Let's look at what all gets upgraded when Microsoft releases a new desktop client version of Windows (forget Server):

I'm not referring to this, Windows and Mac OS X are released on completely different upgrade paths.

Apple doesn't have to invest nearly as much into their platform as most of it was developed out of house. Linux is supported by donations of time and money.

zedster:Theaetetus: But here's the problem... Samsung is treading on very dangerous ground here, since they're obligated under FRAND to allow Apple to purchase a license at a reasonable rate, which Apple claims* they tried to do. If* that's true and Samsung was trying to charge Apple more because of Apple's other lawsuits against Samsung, then Samsung may have been misusing the patent...... which not only gets the DoJ's antitrust hackles up, it also makes their patent legally unenforceable.In other words, if this doesn't turn out well, it's not just that Samsung loses this case, but that they lose every case related to the patent.

You skipped the part were most other companies in the cellular arena cross license patents instead of paying a cash value, making their FRAND patents worth what ever they think they are. Apple, only having a few WIFI patents, had nothing to leverage and thus has to pay "market price" for the FRAND patents. Nokia, Samsung, etc.... can argue the value of their patents is worth what ever their co-licenses value their own patents at. So if Nokia says their FRAND patents are worth 2 billion a year and than cross-license to Samsung for say 100 million a year, than Samsung could argue their patents are worth 1.9 billion a year. (numbers inflated to simplify things)

DoJ already thought of that loophole. If you only cross-license among your patent pool, then fair and reasonable license fees to third parties not in the pool may be determined by independent market experts... not the pool members' questionable internal accounting. It's one of the examples in the 1995 Antitrust Guidelines, even.